• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (3 Viewers)

And you'd be wrong on all counts.

The underside of the binoculars, the side that rubs against clothing and other stuff is almost like new. I've just been photgraphing it. I've noticed also that the right hand barrel is starting to go the same way. One of the cracks on the left barrel is on the inside of the barrel in an area that comes into contact with nothing, yet it's expanded, come loose and cracked. The cracks (or tears) appeared only in early September a few days after I noticed that the plastic was feeling loose under my fingers. During that time I was in Spain on raptor migration. I sat in the side of my vehicle awaiting birds with my camera, the binoculars lay on the adjacent seat, occasionally picked up to identify aprroaching birds, before being put back down. At the end of each day they were carried from the car to the cottage and placed on a table. No impact, no piercing.

The side that routinely faces the sunlight has deteriorated. The side that lies in the shade and rubs against my body has not.

When I'm out with them I'm wearing them, otherwise they lie on the upholstery of the passenger seat alongside me - never 'bouncing about in a bag on the back seat'.

If anything these binoculars have had lighter used than my previous ones.

I've spent the morning doing some statistics.

The binoculars that these replaced were a pair of Opticron DBAs that I bought for myself as a birthday present in 2000. After over 12 years of heavier use than these Swarovskis, the rubber armour was starting to show its age and I had it replaced. It looked a bit like the armour on this pair, but worn on the underside also, and in black rather than green.

I used those binoculars until June 2016 when I bought the Swaros and gave the Opticrons to my son.

I've been looking at my usage over the past years going back to 2015, when I was using the Opticrons, and before the welcome arrival of a grandchild who is partly the reason I have less time birding these days. The other is an incrreasing lack of enthusiasm. I don't keep a record of my birding trips, but I rarely go out without taking photos of the birds, my main aim these days, so I do have a record of every photo.

Some numbers:

In 2015 I was in the UK for 307 days. Of these I was out with my bins (Opticron) and camera on 103 days, ie 33.6% of the available days. I would say that this was fairly representative of the previous years, although maybe on the low side, between 2004 and 2016.

In 2016 I was in the UK for 307 days. I was out taking photos on 62 of them (the grandchild effect), or only 20.2% of the available time. 5 months of that time was spent with the Opticrons 25 days out of 115, at a rate of 21.7% of the available time. I used the Swarovski's on only 37 of the remaining 192 days that year, (19.3%).

In 2017 I was in the UK for 328 days and birded on 78 of them, (23.8%).

In 2018 I was in the UK for 312 days and birded 56 of them (17.9%).

Now we have just completed 9 months of 2019. I've been in the UK 221 days and birded only 31 of them (14.0%).

So all in all I had over 12 years use with my old Opticrons, cost about £550 before they needed new armour and they were in use for something over 33% of the days I was in the UK, based on 2015 usage.

Since I've had the Swarovskis I've been in the UK 1,053 days and used them on 199 of them. Only 18.9 % on average from June 2016 to today.


And I've been treating them like a baby. After all they cost 2,000 quid, a lot of money, not the £550 of the Opticrons whose armour lasted 4 times as long.

It always bothers me when people chime in on a story and tell someone "how it really is" when the story teller has done their honest best to tell their story accurately. This happens a lot on forums I've found.
To me your story with accompanying photograph sounded quite plausible and was reinforced in the wording of the response from Swarovski. No doubt you're using your binoculars a lot (the worn, smoothed off areas back to bare metal alone suggest frequent use) but you said you don't abuse, or subject them to damage. In my view those cracks look more like stress fractures from the degraded rubber rather than impact (I don't suppose you focus with your right hand do you? This may be why the left side is failing before the right as it has been the area of most grip forces. Just a theory.
Anyway speculations aside, I won't be the "armchair foreman" that looks at your job and says it'll only take half an hour. And that said I hope you get a reasonable result from Swarovski.
 
A couple of weeks ago I noticed when I was using my EL binoculars that the rubber casing on the left barrel felt loose beneath my fingers as if rubber had detached from the barrel. A few days later the rubber at that point developed splits.

The binoculars are only a couple of years old and as far as I’m aware never never received any abuse or exposure to chemicals that might cause the rubber to deteriorate in this way. I’m not in the habit of splashing DEET about near my gear.

Yesterday I was chatting to someone with the same model binoculars and mentioned it to him. He said that the same thing had happened to his, so he sent them in to Swarovski who replaced the casing.

He said that they had given the explanation that they had been forced to change the material used in the rubber to conform with new regulations on biodegradability. Surely not?

A pair of binoculars which have a 10 year warranty (I believe) yet the casing needs to be replaced after only a couple of years?

A birder I know had a similar problem with a pair of 8x32's. He continued to use his until they were almost naked of any covering, eventually sending them in to Swarovski. They came back looking like new with no problems.
 
Hi again BW (post #18),

If I’m wrong on all counts, then I’m wrong - and I have no problem with accepting that

My comments were about what appeared to be the situation, based on observation of other Swarovski EL’s and EL SV's

Since your binocular is demonstrating something not seen before than that is very interesting,
and it would be useful to know if Swarovski provides any more information about the deterioration when they replace the covering

Your photo also appears to show scratch marks on the magnesium which is again not usual,
so if there is an additional issue with the magnesium coating that would also be of interest to many


John
 
Last edited:
I remember reading on a forum that the use of sunscreen (so having that type of chemical residus on hands after application) was deteriorating Binos rubber armor.
 
Last edited:
That's absurd, and obviously counterproductive.

Tenex

I am not sure it is quite fair to call this absurd. The armour on a binocular isn't a permanently installed component, it is required to be removable for servicing and repairs. As a result of wear and tear during use of the bino and/or damage resulting from removal from the bino, armour often needs to be disposed of, and therefore it seems quite responsible for it to be biodegradeable.

Lee
 
I remember reading on a forum that the use of sunscreen (so having that type of chemical residus on hands after application) was deteriorating Binos rubber armor.

I used to work in an industry that used different rubbers as a major product component and compatibility of different oils with different rubbers was a major issue. Some oils make some rubbers shrink because the oil draws a component out of the rubber, while some other oils can make rubbers swell because a component in the oil invades the rubber chemically. In either case the rubber not only changed its size and shape but also its physical characteristics making it useless at performing its function.

As a result, I always wash my hands of any kind of oily substance before handling binos. Its worth noting that Swaro has called the EL's armour 'plastic' which may have other strengths and weaknesses compared with rubbers.

Lee
 
Hi again BW (post #18),

If I’m wrong on all counts, then I’m wrong - and I have no problem with accepting that

My comments were about what appeared to be the situation, based on observation of other Swarovski EL’s and EL SV's

Since your binocular is demonstrating something not seen before than that is very interesting,
and it would be useful to know if Swarovski provides any more information about the deterioration when they replace the covering

Your photo also appears to show scratch marks on the magnesium which is again not usual,
so if there is an additional issue with the magnesium coating that would also be of interest to many


John
If you look at the original post, you'll see that it's not something that hasn't happened before. I posted precisely because it had been brought to my attention by one of the few people I had dicussed it with that the very same thing had happened to his, so not only not unique, but given the small number of people I spoke to, the fact that it had happened to someone else suggests that it may not even be rare.
 
It always bothers me when people chime in on a story and tell someone "how it really is" when the story teller has done their honest best to tell their story accurately. This happens a lot on forums I've found.
To me your story with accompanying photograph sounded quite plausible and was reinforced in the wording of the response from Swarovski. No doubt you're using your binoculars a lot (the worn, smoothed off areas back to bare metal alone suggest frequent use) but you said you don't abuse, or subject them to damage. In my view those cracks look more like stress fractures from the degraded rubber rather than impact (I don't suppose you focus with your right hand do you? This may be why the left side is failing before the right as it has been the area of most grip forces. Just a theory.
Anyway speculations aside, I won't be the "armchair foreman" that looks at your job and says it'll only take half an hour. And that said I hope you get a reasonable result from Swarovski.

I do focus with my right hand and the spilts only appeared after the rubber became very slack.
 
I remember reading on a forum that the use of sunscreen (so having that type of chemical residus on hands after application) was deteriorating Binos rubber armor.
I wouldn't disagree with that, which is why if I've applied Deet in the morning I immediately wash my hands to ensure there is no residue before picking up my bins, camera, or even my walking sandals.

Sunscreen isn't a problem with me. It's naughty I know in this day and age, but I hate the stuff and don't use it, except when my wife gets insistant and slaps some on my nose whether I want it ot not. I don't know if it's to do with it blocking the pores, but I've found in the past that sunscreen often results in painful spots.

If I'm getting too much sun, I cover up.
 
Tenex

I am not sure it is quite fair to call this absurd. The armour on a binocular isn't a permanently installed component, it is required to be removable for servicing and repairs. As a result of wear and tear during use of the bino and/or damage resulting from removal from the bino, armour often needs to be disposed of, and therefore it seems quite responsible for it to be biodegradeable.

Lee


Lee,

The coverings on Swarovski binoculars are hardly "bullet proof.";)

I recall reading an article some years ago about getting a Swarovski binocular totally refurbished. It was written by a woman who published a popular Birding magazine.

The owner dropped off her binocular in person at Swarovski USA in Rhode Island where it was picked up in person by the woman who managed the refurbishing section. The first thing the manager did with it was tear the covering off it with her fingernails!

Bob
 
Last edited:
Lee,

The coverings on Swarovski binoculars are hardly "bullet proof.";)

I recall reading an article some years ago about getting a Swarovski binocular totally refurbished. It was written by a woman who published a popular Birding magazine.

The owner dropped off her binocular in person at Swarovski USA in Rhode Island where it was picked up in person by the woman who managed the refurbishing section. The first thing the manager did with it was tear the covering off it with her fingernails!

Bob

LOL yes Bob, I remember that too!

Lee
 
Here is another issue I had a friend who played tennis and his tennis racket handle always deteriorated quicker than his wife's, it turns out his pH of his sweat was slightly more acidic.
I remember reading on a forum that the use of sunscreen (so having that type of chemical residus on hands after application) was deteriorating Binos rubber armor.
Good calls there. Atypical deterioration of camera coverings has also been attributed to sweat, sunscreen, even fingernails.

I am not sure it is quite fair to call this absurd. The armour on a binocular isn't a permanently installed component, it is required to be removable for servicing and repairs. As a result of wear and tear during use of the bino and/or damage resulting from removal from the bino, armour often needs to be disposed of, and therefore it seems quite responsible for it to be biodegradeable.
In what percentage of cases will this actually occur? (I'm sure one would vastly overestimate based on BF posts.) In any case it's just possible that there are more significant things to worry about in saving the earth, starting with population growth.
 
Last edited:
Good calls there. Atypical deterioration of camera coverings has also been attributed to sweat, sunscreen, even fingernails.


In what percentage of cases will this actually occur? (I'm sure one would vastly overestimate based on BF posts.)

Attributed by whom? If a camera covering hasn't been tested against the effects of being touched by hand, it's a pretty crap camera covering and a pretty crap manufacturer.

PS My Canon cameras are still in good shape.
 
Last edited:
The frequency of acidic sweat in the population is fairly high because it is a side effect of diabetes and I have this. Estimates put this at 6% or the UK population and almost 10% of USA. Just to give you an idea of its effects my sweat used to eat holes in metal spectacles frames until I switched to titanium frames a few years back.

Lee
 
Last edited:
The frequency of acidic sweat in the population is quite high because it is a side effect of diabetes and I have this. Just to give you an idea of its effects my sweat used to eat holes in metal spectacles frames until I switched to titanium frames a few years back.

Lee

Sounds like a super power to me Lee.
 
In any case it's just possible that there are more significant things to worry about in saving the earth, starting with population growth.


Well, I absolutely agree with you on that, but I don't think even Swarovski can influence that factor.

Lee
 
This thread grabbed my interest, as my brother has an 8.5x42 SV FP purchased Christmas 2016. It's his regular birding binocular and since the lucky devil is retired, he uses it a lot. Between January 2017 and September 9th this year he's logged at least 404 trips in the UK alone, not counting days when I was with him and not counting trips abroad (several trips to Spain, including a couple of the places the OP has visited, and twice to Singapore). Average session would be around 3 hours and the binoculars would be in hand for most of that time, being used to scan constantly for raptors. He does take very good care of his gear, but that's a good chunk of usage.

I blagged it off him earlier and took some snapshots (attached). The only real evidence of wear is some smoother areas where the binocular has been hand-held. Hopefully the replacement armouring fitted to the OP's binocular will hold up similarly well.

NB. the thought occurred to me that the OP's binocular would look very chic indeed if re-covered with leatherette!
 

Attachments

  • 20191003_233239.jpg
    20191003_233239.jpg
    193.3 KB · Views: 350
  • 20191003_233255.jpg
    20191003_233255.jpg
    129.8 KB · Views: 326
  • 20191003_233309.jpg
    20191003_233309.jpg
    118.6 KB · Views: 277
Well, I absolutely agree with you on that, but I don't think even Swarovski can influence that factor.

Lee

Replacing Karlie Kloss with someone less attractive in their advertising might help! ... :eek!:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top